Key result
Study evaluates concordance between anatomic and hemodynamic severity in low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis.
Why the study?
What is the concordance between anatomic (AVC) and hemodynamic (MG/EOA ratio) assessments in diagnosing severe low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis?
Observational
What is the concordance between anatomic (AVC) and hemodynamic (MG/EOA ratio) assessments in diagnosing severe low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis?
The study aims to evaluate the diagnostic concordance between anatomic (AVC) and hemodynamic (MG/EOA ratio) assessments for identifying true-severe low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis.
Anatomic assessment using aortic valve calcification (AVC) and hemodynamic evaluation are recommended to diagnose true-severe low-flow, low-gradient (LFLG) aortic stenosis (AS); however, concordance between methods is limited. The mean gradient (MG) to effective orifice area (EOA) ratio has recently been proposed for hemodynamic assessment, with ≥25 indicating severe AS. We aimed to evaluate concordance between anatomic and hemodynamic AS severity defined by AVC and MG/EOA.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mousavi et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis. Anatomic assessment (AVC) and hemodynamic evaluation (MG/EOA) was evaluated on Concordance between anatomic and hemodynamic AS severity defined by AVC and MG/EOA. The study aimed to evaluate concordance between anatomic and hemodynamic severity in low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis, but no results were reported in the abstract.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: